I never said nor suggested that we eliminate these programs.
You say that as if I have said that.
I said that these programs are a burden on the middle class. I never said anything about a social cost for removing them. You can't answer a straight question rather you answer someone's question with a series of answers about why something should exist. Its a game of dodgeball.
I have asked you to show me how money spent on the wealthy is a tax burden while money spent on the poor is not and since you have repeatedly dodged that question
Funny I have used a few links here myself and you have read none of them instead asking the same questions over again.
this doesn't look like status quo: at least 44 states Have Already Imposed Cuts That Hurt Vulnerable Residents
Now, if you have information to the contrary I certainly will read it.
-------------------------------
And your own facts show the majority of the money spent last year went to maintain healthcare (I don't have state healthcare) and education (public unions). Those are specifically mentioned in that paragraph as mandated spending in the $200 billion already spent on state budgets.
I'm sure you disagree but those are facts from your source so live with it. Thats where the bulk of the money that has been spent so far has gone according to the CBO.
That's the bottom line here. I rail on everybody regardless of argument on this issue and that's the point of this site...so many people have beliefs and opinions but when you examine the raw data, the statistics, the actual theory and get objective....
then those beliefs and opinions are quite often plain wrong.
That's the bottom line and why this site's motto is:
when in doubt use a calculator as well as be good to each other
So folks, please do not degenerate into your typical political beliefs punditry which I see going on in these comments.
The point is to prove these facts and look at the raw data.
Now if someone needs help in getting access to the raw government data or theory, I can help you get it from the government databases.
But claiming it's all of those "lazy ass welfare moms" to "everybody deserves a job and is just misunderstood" ...
those are beliefs and assumptions...
Not to belabor the point since yes all this is true but the bulk of federal spending now comes from benefit programs that never existed prior to the 1960's.
I asked what benefit programs? I think you responded with food stamps, HUD-section 8, medicaid.
Maybe, I should have corrected your first paragraph - actually the biggest federal budget items are: military spending, social security and medicare.
So again, do you want to cut social security & medicare?
Next, you said:
The private sector middle class is also being sucked dry by the political class which includes public employee unions. $780 billion for stimulus to save existing public union jobs while a new $15 billion dollar bill to aid private sector hiring shows the real focus of this administration.
$780 million for the public sector unions which everyone will be expected to pay back and just $15 billion for the rest of us.
To which, I responded you were wrong. 30% went to tax cuts. Again, do you have different information?
To answer your last question: who is paying for programs? Assuming, I believe they same way you think that gov't programs are financed (BTW, which is quite different than what you think), sure the "burden" for paying for whatever "welfare programs" are left to those who are paying more. But, what should we do - eliminate food stamps, section 8 housing, blah, blah?
Believe me, if you do, there will a huge social cost for doing that. Including, civil unrest that will make a tea party protest look like a coffee klatch.
So, what benefit programs are you talking about again? And, what do you propose we do with food stamps, section 8 housing, blah, blah, blah?
Showing $200 billion has already been provided by the stimulus to shore up state budgets directly. ALREADY - past tense.
--------------------------------------
Providing Aid to States for Purposes Other Than Infrastructure.
Many states have experienced a high degree of fiscal stress and are expected to have large budget gaps in the next few years. Eighteen states have budget gaps larger than 20 percent of general fund expenditures. Those budget gaps have occurred despite more than $200 billion provided to state governments by ARRA for purposes other than infrastructure. CBO analyzed a policy to further assist states by providing funding to state governments for a variety of purposes. Even if funding was intended for a specific activity, such as education or health care, CBO anticipates that the availability of those additional funds would both increase net state spending for that activity and affect other aspects of state budgets.
I didn't rail against those things. You just can't handle any discussion that calls those what they are - mandates that are contributing to the deficit and that never existed before the 1960's.
If you go back and reread what I said rather than to continue to stuff your preferred image of what you WANT to respond to all I said originally was that these are just another expense forced on the middle class and that any discussion of a war on the middle class needs to acknowledge them also. I added that the wealthy are not paying their fair share of things and that something has to give.
So lets review.
The middle class is subsidizing the wealthy according to this blog and that was generally agreed on.
Now who is paying for these other programs if not the middle class? Answer that.
You rail against food stamps, section 8, blah, blah. Do you how many people were in "secure" jobs last year or year before and are now on food stamps, and possibly section 8 housing?
What people fail to realize is that for many of us we are just, ONE fucking job away from the poor house?
Think about that when you trot out your Reaganesque "welfare queen" bullshit.
If the CBO presented facts rather than their opinion they would never be wrong unfortunately all they present is their educated opinions which are as wrong as yours. Their track record speaks for itself.
You will ignore my last paragraph because you have no retort as to why those actual expenses are not a burden on the middle class.
It certainly didn't go to the private sector. Least bang for the buck according to who? - the public union leeches that wanted it all I guess. From what I have read they haven't even spent a third of the money yet so if they spent 30% on tax credits - you are saying they spent it all on tax cuts which doesn't jive with anything else out there. I know a link to a another blog is the absolute fact though so of course you are right (heavy heavy sarcasm).
Right $15 billion in hiring incentives is for the rest of us so lets add the $400 credit that went to everyone including those in unions and the public sector and then look at the bulk of the spending that was targeted at maintaining public union employment.
Cuts in education spending? You'd have to only be living in the past year to believe that. Education spending has been out of control for decades. Education spending has far exceeded inflation stats for the past 30 years.
Medicaid is 20% of states budgets and growing.
Please stop linking Social Security (something I have paid into for 40 years) we all know that program has been used to fund the general budget since Reagan but where is it going is the question. The $400 credit will be used as an incentive to show that the SS fund is broke earlier than it would otherwise be further screwing the working class that actually contribute to it.
Almost every state in the country kept the status quo and made up for their budget short falls through the stimulus money rather than make cuts which will have to be made sooner or later.
I know that the wealthy are not paying their fair share but to argue that programs such as welfare, medicaid, food stamps, section 8, HUD, overspending on education, free lunches, free breakfasts, etc etc has no negative effect on the budget and the people that actually pay taxes is nothing but a disingenuous self serving lie.
I really have issue with economic fiction and spin and that's because I must swim through miles of it from Academia to lobbyists to get to the objective details per issue...
but that said, I still want you to tighten up this post with some verified facts. It really is important to our readers to make sure we can back up with statistics pretty much everything we talk/write about.
but they have slightly different slants in readings (see differences), also the same size is 10:1, 500 vs. 5000 for consumer confidence.
then, they have slightly different time windows and Jan. CCI was higher, so I'll bet the MCSI caught an earlier time window.
I honestly think Americans, well when unemployment first occurs you're kind of in shock, then you go looking assuming you'll just get another job....then reality sinks in, then panic, then poverty...
I think we're at the reality sinks in stage of awareness.
On the dupe deal, I'm fine with just combining them when it happens...pretty astounding though to have two people, multiple times in that authoring creation window, writing similar stuff. ;)
There is a log on the site to show who is actual in authoring process but nothing shows up on the main site (does in the logs) to show what someone is working on until they actual publish it. But kind of a real pain to pull out just that log data....then I think we often focus in on different aspects, although I notice both of us manage to pull out that real shocking meat story out of these!
I sure think these things are critical reading for EPers, I find out slants unique to other blogs who even cover them (most plain do not), esp. our fav. "green shooters" ;)
So, I say, either we just plain dupe if they are different slants or edit and combine if they are similar. Why not.
It's like the Colin Powell Doctrine - if you go to war use overwhelming force. Like Bush mishandled the Iraq War, Obama is mishandling this jobs crisis. Dems are cheering over CBOs report released today that says stimulus created 2 million jobs.
2 million jobs - do you know how deep the jobs hole is? We need about 100,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. Can you imagine if the stimulus focused on Full Employment? Oh, BTW, tax cuts are not going to get you to Full Employment.
I was actually surprised that you hadn't posted this (I checked first).
The question is why the Umass consumer sentiment index shows something entirely different?
But unfortunately La Raza was involved, so you can bet $$'s that's not happening for people are completely, royally pissed off at the refusal to give Stimulus jobs only to the U.S. labor force, exclusively. Implying illegal immigrants need their own U.S. taxpayer funded stimulus jobs will kill a bill quicker than Shelby can put a hold on a nomination.
I wish to God these various special interest groups could get out of the picture, talk about screwing up a strong need for the American workforce. Or, conversely I wish the U.S. middle class as an entire entity has it's own lobbyist organization. Lord knows we need one.
I never said nor suggested that we eliminate these programs.
You say that as if I have said that.
I said that these programs are a burden on the middle class. I never said anything about a social cost for removing them. You can't answer a straight question rather you answer someone's question with a series of answers about why something should exist. Its a game of dodgeball.
I have asked you to show me how money spent on the wealthy is a tax burden while money spent on the poor is not and since you have repeatedly dodged that question
Funny I have used a few links here myself and you have read none of them instead asking the same questions over again.
You said:
As for state budget cuts
this doesn't look like status quo: at least 44 states Have Already Imposed Cuts That Hurt Vulnerable Residents
Now, if you have information to the contrary I certainly will read it.
-------------------------------
And your own facts show the majority of the money spent last year went to maintain healthcare (I don't have state healthcare) and education (public unions). Those are specifically mentioned in that paragraph as mandated spending in the $200 billion already spent on state budgets.
I'm sure you disagree but those are facts from your source so live with it. Thats where the bulk of the money that has been spent so far has gone according to the CBO.
That's the bottom line here. I rail on everybody regardless of argument on this issue and that's the point of this site...so many people have beliefs and opinions but when you examine the raw data, the statistics, the actual theory and get objective....
then those beliefs and opinions are quite often plain wrong.
That's the bottom line and why this site's motto is:
when in doubt use a calculator as well as be good to each other
So folks, please do not degenerate into your typical political beliefs punditry which I see going on in these comments.
The point is to prove these facts and look at the raw data.
Now if someone needs help in getting access to the raw government data or theory, I can help you get it from the government databases.
But claiming it's all of those "lazy ass welfare moms" to "everybody deserves a job and is just misunderstood" ...
those are beliefs and assumptions...
it's not economics, statistics, theory.
You questioned "bang for the buck". I provided two sources that showed tax cuts don't provide best "bang for buck".
What is your point? That the money went to "public sector unions".
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Your first comment was about:
I asked what benefit programs? I think you responded with food stamps, HUD-section 8, medicaid.
Maybe, I should have corrected your first paragraph - actually the biggest federal budget items are: military spending, social security and medicare.
So again, do you want to cut social security & medicare?
Next, you said:
To which, I responded you were wrong. 30% went to tax cuts. Again, do you have different information?
To answer your last question: who is paying for programs? Assuming, I believe they same way you think that gov't programs are financed (BTW, which is quite different than what you think), sure the "burden" for paying for whatever "welfare programs" are left to those who are paying more. But, what should we do - eliminate food stamps, section 8 housing, blah, blah?
Believe me, if you do, there will a huge social cost for doing that. Including, civil unrest that will make a tea party protest look like a coffee klatch.
So, what benefit programs are you talking about again? And, what do you propose we do with food stamps, section 8 housing, blah, blah, blah?
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Showing $200 billion has already been provided by the stimulus to shore up state budgets directly. ALREADY - past tense.
--------------------------------------
Providing Aid to States for Purposes Other Than Infrastructure.
Many states have experienced a high degree of fiscal stress and are expected to have large budget gaps in the next few years. Eighteen states have budget gaps larger than 20 percent of general fund expenditures. Those budget gaps have occurred despite more than $200 billion provided to state governments by ARRA for purposes other than infrastructure. CBO analyzed a policy to further assist states by providing funding to state governments for a variety of purposes. Even if funding was intended for a specific activity, such as education or health care, CBO anticipates that the availability of those additional funds would both increase net state spending for that activity and affect other aspects of state budgets.
And you want me to look at hand picked isolated charts and graphs absent any original comment from the source?
What that says more than anything else is that you disagree with the middle class working stiff getting anything out of the stimulus.
I have to love people that live in a world of charts and graphs, they are so full of charts and graphs.
I didn't rail against those things. You just can't handle any discussion that calls those what they are - mandates that are contributing to the deficit and that never existed before the 1960's.
If you go back and reread what I said rather than to continue to stuff your preferred image of what you WANT to respond to all I said originally was that these are just another expense forced on the middle class and that any discussion of a war on the middle class needs to acknowledge them also. I added that the wealthy are not paying their fair share of things and that something has to give.
So lets review.
The middle class is subsidizing the wealthy according to this blog and that was generally agreed on.
Now who is paying for these other programs if not the middle class? Answer that.
and for another source for 'bang for buck' check out graph in middle of page on this post: A Proposal for True Keynesian Economics
Got any sources to the contrary?
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
A partial truth does not negate what the money has been spent on.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-17-stimulus-funds_N.htm
You rail against food stamps, section 8, blah, blah. Do you how many people were in "secure" jobs last year or year before and are now on food stamps, and possibly section 8 housing?
What people fail to realize is that for many of us we are just, ONE fucking job away from the poor house?
Think about that when you trot out your Reaganesque "welfare queen" bullshit.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
If the CBO presented facts rather than their opinion they would never be wrong unfortunately all they present is their educated opinions which are as wrong as yours. Their track record speaks for itself.
You will ignore my last paragraph because you have no retort as to why those actual expenses are not a burden on the middle class.
this doesn't look like status quo: at least 44 states Have Already Imposed Cuts That Hurt Vulnerable Residents
Now, if you have information to the contrary I certainly will read it.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
right here. You can ignore facts - I can't help that. All I can do is provide information and point out where you are incorrect.
I will ignore your last paragraph because it's pretty ignorant of reality.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
It certainly didn't go to the private sector. Least bang for the buck according to who? - the public union leeches that wanted it all I guess. From what I have read they haven't even spent a third of the money yet so if they spent 30% on tax credits - you are saying they spent it all on tax cuts which doesn't jive with anything else out there. I know a link to a another blog is the absolute fact though so of course you are right (heavy heavy sarcasm).
Right $15 billion in hiring incentives is for the rest of us so lets add the $400 credit that went to everyone including those in unions and the public sector and then look at the bulk of the spending that was targeted at maintaining public union employment.
Cuts in education spending? You'd have to only be living in the past year to believe that. Education spending has been out of control for decades. Education spending has far exceeded inflation stats for the past 30 years.
Medicaid is 20% of states budgets and growing.
Please stop linking Social Security (something I have paid into for 40 years) we all know that program has been used to fund the general budget since Reagan but where is it going is the question. The $400 credit will be used as an incentive to show that the SS fund is broke earlier than it would otherwise be further screwing the working class that actually contribute to it.
Almost every state in the country kept the status quo and made up for their budget short falls through the stimulus money rather than make cuts which will have to be made sooner or later.
I know that the wealthy are not paying their fair share but to argue that programs such as welfare, medicaid, food stamps, section 8, HUD, overspending on education, free lunches, free breakfasts, etc etc has no negative effect on the budget and the people that actually pay taxes is nothing but a disingenuous self serving lie.
I really have issue with economic fiction and spin and that's because I must swim through miles of it from Academia to lobbyists to get to the objective details per issue...
but that said, I still want you to tighten up this post with some verified facts. It really is important to our readers to make sure we can back up with statistics pretty much everything we talk/write about.
It did decline, 73.7 from 74.4.
but they have slightly different slants in readings (see differences), also the same size is 10:1, 500 vs. 5000 for consumer confidence.
then, they have slightly different time windows and Jan. CCI was higher, so I'll bet the MCSI caught an earlier time window.
I honestly think Americans, well when unemployment first occurs you're kind of in shock, then you go looking assuming you'll just get another job....then reality sinks in, then panic, then poverty...
I think we're at the reality sinks in stage of awareness.
On the dupe deal, I'm fine with just combining them when it happens...pretty astounding though to have two people, multiple times in that authoring creation window, writing similar stuff. ;)
There is a log on the site to show who is actual in authoring process but nothing shows up on the main site (does in the logs) to show what someone is working on until they actual publish it. But kind of a real pain to pull out just that log data....then I think we often focus in on different aspects, although I notice both of us manage to pull out that real shocking meat story out of these!
I sure think these things are critical reading for EPers, I find out slants unique to other blogs who even cover them (most plain do not), esp. our fav. "green shooters" ;)
So, I say, either we just plain dupe if they are different slants or edit and combine if they are similar. Why not.
It's not like we have limited space? ;)
It's like the Colin Powell Doctrine - if you go to war use overwhelming force. Like Bush mishandled the Iraq War, Obama is mishandling this jobs crisis. Dems are cheering over CBOs report released today that says stimulus created 2 million jobs.
2 million jobs - do you know how deep the jobs hole is? We need about 100,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. Can you imagine if the stimulus focused on Full Employment? Oh, BTW, tax cuts are not going to get you to Full Employment.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
I was actually surprised that you hadn't posted this (I checked first).
The question is why the Umass consumer sentiment index shows something entirely different?
But unfortunately La Raza was involved, so you can bet $$'s that's not happening for people are completely, royally pissed off at the refusal to give Stimulus jobs only to the U.S. labor force, exclusively. Implying illegal immigrants need their own U.S. taxpayer funded stimulus jobs will kill a bill quicker than Shelby can put a hold on a nomination.
I wish to God these various special interest groups could get out of the picture, talk about screwing up a strong need for the American workforce. Or, conversely I wish the U.S. middle class as an entire entity has it's own lobbyist organization. Lord knows we need one.
Pages